ADESH GUPTA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 263/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 June 2018AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that it was not established that any notice of hearing was served on the assessee by the CIT(A). Therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated.

What were the facts?

The assessee was levied a penalty of Rs. 80,000 under Section 271(1)(c) for unexplained income. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty ex-parte. The assessee appealed, claiming no notice for hearing was served.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty ex-parte without providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. N. K. Saini

Hearing: 05.06.2018Pronounced: 08.06.2018

ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 26.04.2017 of ld. CIT(A), Haldwani.

2.

The only grounds raised

1.

in this appeal reads as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals erred in not deleting the penalty for a sum of Rs.80,000/-.”

3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee levied the penalty of Rs.80,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the reasons that an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was added to the income of the assessee as unexplained income.

Adesh Gupta 4. Being aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal to the ld. CIT(A) who decided the appeal ex-parte and confirmed the penalty levied by the AO.

5.

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no notice for hearing was served upon the assessee and that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity of being heard.

6.

In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee did not comply the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A), so there was no alternative except to decide the appeal ex-parte.

7.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) simply mentioned in para 4 of the impugned order that the notices were issued to the assessee for fixing the date of hearing. However, it is not brought on record that any of the notice of hearing was served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. I, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh

Adesh Gupta in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 08/06/2018)

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →